Opinons and reports from the bridge table about card play, bidding, auctions and bidding theory.

Monday, June 4, 2007

Going for the canapé lead?

At the Swedish GNT, on viewgraph, I had the following collection:

KT65J82865434

The auction was 1D by partner, 11-13 bal/5M332 or 11-15 unbal with 4-card M (any 4441 or m-canapé), X by RHO, I passed and LHO jumped to 3C. RHO concluded with 3NT and I had to find a lead.

Thinking about the canapé lead theory and feeling that the diamond suit was pretty anemic (partner hadn't promised any diamonds but was unlikely to hold a void on the auction), I led a spade. This seemed like the best chance to build tricks with known strength in partner's hand (he could also have 5-card spade suit in our system).

This time we got no second chances to beat the contract. Tempo and a trick was lost. Was this unlucky or was justice made? I think it was unlucky but maybe I'm not totally objective. X implied shortness in diamonds so partner was very likely to hold at least three. 3NT was pretty aggressive and this time he was empty in H's.

This was sort of a reverse situation of the canapé lead theory in the way that the long suit would not give away a trick if partner was short. The 3C jump implied a source of tricks and that we needed to attack and it was the short suit lead that was the more attacking option. What about that.